Eating under calorie limits

fsuguy92

Hey guys, I've done this MFP many times before with success but haven't had the self-control to sustain it for longer than a few months at at time. This time around, I have my best friend doing it with me and so far we are pushing each other so I have a great feeling that we will stick with it.

My question is this: I have a calorie limit of 1790 but usually I come in around 1400. Is that too little? At that amount, I'm not ever really still hungry but I am concerned that eating too few calories will impede my weight loss as my body will start consuming muscle instead of energy from food. However, I assume if I am not hungry that this will not be an issue. I am a 5'11 255# male.

terbusha

I would be weary of eating 1400 cal/day as a dude. Your body needs fuel to function properly and will respond to very low calories by reducing your metabolic rate. Check this out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

I wouldn't go below 1800 cal/day, but I prefer people to eat as much as they can while losing weight. If you can lose a couple lbs/week eating 2000-2400 cal/day, then why would you want to eating less (rhetorical)?

fsuguy92

terbusha wrote: »

I would be weary of eating 1400 cal/day as a dude. Your body needs fuel to function properly and will respond to very low calories by reducing your metabolic rate. Check this out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

I wouldn't go below 1800 cal/day, but I prefer people to eat as much as they can while losing weight. If you can lose a couple lbs/week eating 2000-2400 cal/day, then why would you want to eating less (rhetorical)?

I guess I'm just full with what I'm eating. For instance, my average day goes like this:
Breakfast- 1poached egg, english muffin, canadian bacon, fat free cheese
Snack-banana
Lunch- salad with turkey, feta cheese, balsamic vinigarette dressing
Snack-beef jerky
Dinner-grilled chicken breast

With spreading out my eating like that instead of just eating 3 large meals, I'm consistently full but that puts me around 1400 calories (give or take 50)

BernadetteChurch

OP, if that volume of food keeps you satisfied, then choose full fat versions of cheese and other dairy products, butter that muffin, or add some oil to your salad. That will get the cals up pretty quickly without adding too much extra food to your tummy.

AmyRhubarb

I agree with terbusha - I'm a 46 year old 140-ish pound woman, and I lose on 1800-2000 cals a day. I would think you should be eating at least that much.

Ditch the fat free cheese for full fat & add another egg or some avocado to your breakfast. Snack on nuts and nut butter (apples dipped in peanut or almond butter is a great snack).
Is dinner just a chicken breast? No veggies? Toss some butternut squash or any veggie of your choice in some olive or coconut oil, sprinkle with a bit of salt and pepper and add some fresh or dried herbs, and roast in the oven. Have a baked sweet potato, and put some butter on it!

All of these things will bump up your calories.

Zedeff

BernadetteChurch wrote: »

OP, if that volume of food keeps you satisfied, then choose full fat versions of cheese and other dairy products, butter that muffin, or add some oil to your salad. That will get the cals up pretty quickly without adding too much extra food to your tummy.

There's no point to doing this at all.

The argument to eat more is to provide fuel in the form of macronutrients (energy) and micronutrients (vitamins/minerals). If you're not hungry, you're not really shorting yourself of macronutrients and if you are hungry, well then you've got the "allowable" calories to just eat more so problem solved.

So if the argument to eat more comes down to micronutrients, I would pose the question: what nutrients are there that are supplied by dairy fat and oil?

People always post the same advice when this question comes up and it's silly. The advice usually includes things like "force feed yourself peanut butter, it has loads of fat and calories. Switch from lean meat to fatty meat, add butter to your foods, guzzle oil, it has lots of calories!"

Who cares? Calories isn't the goal, nutrition is the goal, and there's no nutrients in dairy fat, beef fat, or oil.

If you're not hungry, then keep doing what you're doing; if you get hungry, you've got room to maneuver.

Amanda4change

Zedeff wrote: »

BernadetteChurch wrote: »

OP, if that volume of food keeps you satisfied, then choose full fat versions of cheese and other dairy products, butter that muffin, or add some oil to your salad. That will get the cals up pretty quickly without adding too much extra food to your tummy.

There's no point to doing this at all.

The argument to eat more is to provide fuel in the form of macronutrients (energy) and micronutrients (vitamins/minerals). If you're not hungry, you're not really shorting yourself of macronutrients and if you are hungry, well then you've got the "allowable" calories to just eat more so problem solved.

So if the argument to eat more comes down to micronutrients, I would pose the question: what nutrients are there that are supplied by dairy fat and oil?

People always post the same advice when this question comes up and it's silly. The advice usually includes things like "force feed yourself peanut butter, it has loads of fat and calories. Switch from lean meat to fatty meat, add butter to your foods, guzzle oil, it has lots of calories!"

Who cares? Calories isn't the goal, nutrition is the goal, and there's no nutrients in dairy fat, beef fat, or oil.

If you're not hungry, then keep doing what you're doing; if you get hungry, you've got room to maneuver.

There is a point. 1400 calories is too low for a man. He specifically said he wants to do it the right way and not have his body go after muscle (which it will), but this can be minimized by not having such a large deficit and lifting weights. By the way fat itself (be it dairy, beef or oil) is actually something your body uses which does make it a nutrient:

Fat is one of the 3 nutrients (along with protein and carbohydrates) that supply calories to the body. Fat provides 9 calories per gram, more than twice the number provided by carbohydrates or protein.
Fat is essential for the proper functioning of the body. Fats provide essential fatty acids, which are not made by the body and must be obtained from food. The essential fatty acids are linoleic and linolenic acid. They are important for controlling inflammation, blood clotting, and brain development. (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/health/nutrition/whole-wheat-ginger-scones.html?referrer=)

mcibty

Zedeff wrote: »

BernadetteChurch wrote: »

OP, if that volume of food keeps you satisfied, then choose full fat versions of cheese and other dairy products, butter that muffin, or add some oil to your salad. That will get the cals up pretty quickly without adding too much extra food to your tummy.

There's no point to doing this at all.

The argument to eat more is to provide fuel in the form of macronutrients (energy) and micronutrients (vitamins/minerals). If you're not hungry, you're not really shorting yourself of macronutrients and if you are hungry, well then you've got the "allowable" calories to just eat more so problem solved.

So if the argument to eat more comes down to micronutrients, I would pose the question: what nutrients are there that are supplied by dairy fat and oil?

People always post the same advice when this question comes up and it's silly. The advice usually includes things like "force feed yourself peanut butter, it has loads of fat and calories. Switch from lean meat to fatty meat, add butter to your foods, guzzle oil, it has lots of calories!"

Who cares? Calories isn't the goal, nutrition is the goal, and there's no nutrients in dairy fat, beef fat, or oil.

If you're not hungry, then keep doing what you're doing; if you get hungry, you've got room to maneuver.

Unfortunately, it is actually largely about calories.

Calories are simply units of energy and we need a set amount a day. You know this. Calories and nutrients are two different beasts, that a lot of people confuse.

I'm sure when he becomes exhausted, irritable, unable to sleep, when his skin and nails start to look gross, etc, etc, then he'll realise that 1,400 isn't enough. Sorry OP, but I'm a 5'6 150lbs female and your diary makes my belly sad.

But hey, that's just my two cents worth.

sjohnson__1

lol @ "calories isn't the goal, nutrition is the goal..."

Think that one over.

sjohnson__1

OP, obviously your goal is weightloss and you've had trouble in the past sustaining your diets. I would also venture to guess that your diets have probably all consisted of drastically changing your eating habits, and in effect, provide you with some instant results, but ones you weren't able to maintain. Calories have got to be the MOST IMPORTANT, bc well... they represent energy, and you must have enough to function properly. After you raise ur cals to at minimum no more than 700 cals below maintenance and no less than 1800 cals, you should also start to track your macro & micro nutrients. You need a decent amount of fats, carbs, and protein. The specific amounts are arguable, but ultimately up to you. As rule of thumb, I wouldn't go under 20% of calories for any of the 3 macro nutrients.

Zedeff

Calories are NOT a measure of nutritional content. If that were true, a diet of pure fat (at 9 kcal/gram) would be the healthiest thing you could eat.

MCIBTY wrote: »

Unfortunately, it is actually largely about calories.

Calories are simply units of energy and we need a set amount a day. You know this. Calories and nutrients are two different beasts, that a lot of people confuse.

I'm sure when he becomes exhausted, irritable, unable to sleep, when his skin and nails start to look gross, etc, etc, then he'll realise that 1,400 isn't enough. Sorry OP, but I'm a 5'6 150lbs female and your diary makes my belly sad.

But hey, that's just my two cents worth.

Any sensible person who is exhausted, irritable, and sleepless due to their voluntary diet would choose to eat more.

Am I going to far in presuming that most people are sensible? The OP doesn't strike me as the eating disorder type.

fsuguy92

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

OP, obviously your goal is weightloss and you've had trouble in the past sustaining your diets. I would also venture to guess that your diets have probably all consisted of drastically changing your eating habits, and in effect, provide you with some instant results, but ones you weren't able to maintain. Calories have got to be the MOST IMPORTANT, bc well... they represent energy, and you must have enough to function properly. After you raise ur cals to at minimum no more than 700 cals below maintenance and no less than 1800 cals, you should also start to track your macro & micro nutrients. You need a decent amount of fats, carbs, and protein. The specific amounts are arguable, but ultimately up to you. As rule of thumb, I wouldn't go under 20% of calories for any of the 3 macro nutrients.

I definitely have had issues in the past maintaining my diet. However, my last few times I tried were while I was a college student, going home or going out with friends I haven't seen in a while put me in situations where I would eat badly, and from there I never went back to MFP. I feel like I'm in a situation where I am much more able to eat well consistently.

In addition, I still enjoy what I am eating and would love to keep eating these foods. For instance, instead of eating regular potato chips I bough quinoa chips which are delicious and have a huge amount of protein per serving. I have entirely cut out all of the unhealthy things that have gotten me to the weight I am no, save for a cheat day every Saturday. I did purchase things like extremely low calorie dressings and the like. Which, since I eat salads frequently, I could go to regular dressings which would certainly raise my calorie levels significantly. I just feel like I would rather fill those calories with healthy foods instead of super fatty dressings and the like.

lilpickle683

it's actually healthier to eat "fatty" dressings than low-fat or fat-free ones. 1 - low fat or fat free dressings tend to have a lot of sugar. 2 - a lot of the vitamins in the vegetables in your salad are fat-soluble, so you need some fat to be able to absorb them. just my preference, but i'd rather eat smaller amounts of the full fat stuff (cheese, olive oil for salad) than the more processed fat free stuff.

Zedeff

lilpickle683 wrote: »

it's actually healthier to eat "fatty" dressings than low-fat or fat-free ones. 1 - low fat or fat free dressings tend to have a lot of sugar.

Irrelevant if he's counting calories.

Zedeff

By the way, if you want to discuss what is scientifically evident, then let's discuss this notion of profound muscle wasting on a calorie restricted diet. Is there any evidence that muscle loss (as a proportion of total loss) gets worse with a deeper calorie deficit?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407096
Compared a diet of 500 kcal/day vs 1200 kcal/day for 24 weeks; no difference in lean mass loss between groups, but a trend favoring the 500 kcal group (3.6% vs. 4.2% lean mass loss).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636
On an 8 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24% of their fat mass and 5% of their lean mass - the significance of this result of course depends on an individual's goals and weight and how important that 5% is to them.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490
On a 12 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24 kg, 75% of which was from fat stores (unspecific amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595165
A 12 week 330 kcal/day diet followed by a 52 week balanced diet; 71% of weight loss is from fat (unspecified amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14618457
A big trial, 1100 participants, VLCD, fat loss accounts for 84% of the weight loss (10.3 kg fat, 2.0 kg lean).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22569236
Exercising during a VLCD can increase lean body mass.

I'm not advocating a VLCD because VLCDs should be physician supervised, are not easy to maintain, and are potentially dangerous. But the evidence does not support the position that decreasing calories increases muscle loss more than a "regular" diet would.

sjohnson__1

Zedeff wrote: »

By the way, if you want to discuss what is scientifically evident, then let's discuss this notion of profound muscle wasting on a calorie restricted diet. Is there any evidence that muscle loss (as a proportion of total loss) gets worse with a deeper calorie deficit?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407096
Compared a diet of 500 kcal/day vs 1200 kcal/day for 24 weeks; no difference in lean mass loss between groups, but a trend favoring the 500 kcal group (3.6% vs. 4.2% lean mass loss).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636
On an 8 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24% of their fat mass and 5% of their lean mass - the significance of this result of course depends on an individual's goals and weight and how important that 5% is to them.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490
On a 12 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24 kg, 75% of which was from fat stores (unspecific amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595165
A 12 week 330 kcal/day diet followed by a 52 week balanced diet; 71% of weight loss is from fat (unspecified amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14618457
A big trial, 1100 participants, VLCD, fat loss accounts for 84% of the weight loss (10.3 kg fat, 2.0 kg lean).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22569236
Exercising during a VLCD can increase lean body mass.

I'm not advocating a VLCD because VLCDs should be physician supervised, are not easy to maintain, and are potentially dangerous. But the evidence does not support the position that decreasing calories increases muscle loss more than a "regular" diet would.

Interesting post. I'll have to read the studies. I wonder what has been done with those of us who are not necessarily overweight but cutting for aesthetics. ie: Bodybuilders try and lose weight at a slow rate to save as much LBM as possible. It's also true that strength is effected pretty significantly. Not sure I disagree with your post, but I wouldn't ever suggest VLCDs for multiple reasons. And loss of LBM would be one of them.

Zedeff

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

By the way, if you want to discuss what is scientifically evident, then let's discuss this notion of profound muscle wasting on a calorie restricted diet. Is there any evidence that muscle loss (as a proportion of total loss) gets worse with a deeper calorie deficit?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407096
Compared a diet of 500 kcal/day vs 1200 kcal/day for 24 weeks; no difference in lean mass loss between groups, but a trend favoring the 500 kcal group (3.6% vs. 4.2% lean mass loss).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636
On an 8 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24% of their fat mass and 5% of their lean mass - the significance of this result of course depends on an individual's goals and weight and how important that 5% is to them.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490
On a 12 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24 kg, 75% of which was from fat stores (unspecific amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595165
A 12 week 330 kcal/day diet followed by a 52 week balanced diet; 71% of weight loss is from fat (unspecified amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14618457
A big trial, 1100 participants, VLCD, fat loss accounts for 84% of the weight loss (10.3 kg fat, 2.0 kg lean).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22569236
Exercising during a VLCD can increase lean body mass.

I'm not advocating a VLCD because VLCDs should be physician supervised, are not easy to maintain, and are potentially dangerous. But the evidence does not support the position that decreasing calories increases muscle loss more than a "regular" diet would.

Interesting post. I'll have to read the studies. I wonder what has been done with those of us who are not necessarily overweight but cutting for aesthetics. ie: Bodybuilders try and lose weight at a slow rate to save as much LBM as possible. It's also true that strength is effected pretty significantly. Not sure I disagree with your post, but I wouldn't ever suggest VLCDs for multiple reasons. And loss of LBM would be one of them.

I think that you absolutely cannot follow those studies if you are not obese. You can't prove it in those studies, but it makes rational sense that the ratio of fat to muscle loss is proportional to the availability of each compound. If you're obese, you have more available fat; if you're not obese, it makes intuitive sense (I'm not claiming this is proven!) that your lean mass loss will increase beyond what those studies show.

For a bodybuilder/physique-oriented goal, preserving lean mass is much more important than somebody losing copious excess mass for health reasons. In reality, obese people have large lean masses (above average) as well as large fat masses, so losing some of each is reasonable so long as you don't lose too much lean mass. For a bodybuilder, the same is not true - you do not have above average fat masses and will probably lose an unacceptable amount of lean mass.

sjohnson__1

Zedeff wrote: »

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

Zedeff wrote: »

By the way, if you want to discuss what is scientifically evident, then let's discuss this notion of profound muscle wasting on a calorie restricted diet. Is there any evidence that muscle loss (as a proportion of total loss) gets worse with a deeper calorie deficit?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407096
Compared a diet of 500 kcal/day vs 1200 kcal/day for 24 weeks; no difference in lean mass loss between groups, but a trend favoring the 500 kcal group (3.6% vs. 4.2% lean mass loss).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636
On an 8 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24% of their fat mass and 5% of their lean mass - the significance of this result of course depends on an individual's goals and weight and how important that 5% is to them.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2016490
On a 12 week very low calorie diet obese participants lost 24 kg, 75% of which was from fat stores (unspecific amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595165
A 12 week 330 kcal/day diet followed by a 52 week balanced diet; 71% of weight loss is from fat (unspecified amount from water, can't comment on lean mass).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14618457
A big trial, 1100 participants, VLCD, fat loss accounts for 84% of the weight loss (10.3 kg fat, 2.0 kg lean).

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22569236
Exercising during a VLCD can increase lean body mass.

I'm not advocating a VLCD because VLCDs should be physician supervised, are not easy to maintain, and are potentially dangerous. But the evidence does not support the position that decreasing calories increases muscle loss more than a "regular" diet would.

Interesting post. I'll have to read the studies. I wonder what has been done with those of us who are not necessarily overweight but cutting for aesthetics. ie: Bodybuilders try and lose weight at a slow rate to save as much LBM as possible. It's also true that strength is effected pretty significantly. Not sure I disagree with your post, but I wouldn't ever suggest VLCDs for multiple reasons. And loss of LBM would be one of them.

I think that you absolutely cannot follow those studies if you are not obese. You can't prove it in those studies, but it makes rational sense that the ratio of fat to muscle loss is proportional to the availability of each compound. If you're obese, you have more available fat; if you're not obese, it makes intuitive sense (I'm not claiming this is proven!) that your lean mass loss will increase beyond what those studies show.

For a bodybuilder/physique-oriented goal, preserving lean mass is much more important than somebody losing copious excess mass for health reasons. In reality, obese people have large lean masses (above average) as well as large fat masses, so losing some of each is reasonable so long as you don't lose too much lean mass. For a bodybuilder, the same is not true - you do not have above average fat masses and will probably lose an unacceptable amount of lean mass.

My thoughts, exactly. Thanks!

sjohnson__1

OP, hopefully we were of some assistance. If you're into eating completely "clean", then go for it. I simply adhere to the 80/20 rule, 80% of my cals are healthy and full of micronutrients, the other 20% is whatever I can make fit my macros. For me, it helps with sustaining the lifestyle for the long haul.

fsuguy92

sjohnson__1 wrote: »

OP, hopefully we were of some assistance. If you're into eating completely "clean", then go for it. I simply adhere to the 80/20 rule, 80% of my cals are healthy and full of micronutrients, the other 20% is whatever I can make fit my macros. For me, it helps with sustaining the lifestyle for the long haul.

That makes sense. I think in the beginning of this whole process I'm so gung-ho about changing my diet that I go overboard throwing everything out that is high in fat/calories and replacing it with something extremely low in calories. I think I'm now realizing that doing that is just not necessary. Using a dressing that has 100 calories per tbsp is okay... if I'm ONLY using one table spoon. I've always said "everything is okay in moderation" to others who are trying to lose but now I think I realize I need to apply that phrase to myself.

segacs

fsuguy92 wrote: »

That makes sense. I think in the beginning of this whole process I'm so gung-ho about changing my diet that I go overboard throwing everything out that is high in fat/calories and replacing it with something extremely low in calories. I think I'm now realizing that doing that is just not necessary. Using a dressing that has 100 calories per tbsp is okay... if I'm ONLY using one table spoon. I've always said "everything is okay in moderation" to others who are trying to lose but now I think I realize I need to apply that phrase to myself.

Think of it this way: Which of the two plans can you realistically see yourself being able to stick with for the rest of your life? Eating only low-calorie foods exclusively? Or eating everything in moderation?

Yep, that's what I thought you'd say.

Good luck!